Good evening once again, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to the second annual national telethon in support of victims of JTE—Justin Trudeau’s Elbow. I’m your host, Tom Mulcair.

It has been two years now since the Prime Minister stormed recklessly across the House of Commons, uttered a profanity and struck the chest of New Democrat MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau. Two long years—yet peace and justice continue to elude many who witnessed the traumatic event. This telethon is for them.

May 18 has become one of our nation’s most solemn days of remembrance. Over the past week, I’m sure you’ve noticed news coverage of the approaching anniversary. You’ve heard the songs on the radio, including Neil Young’s protest anthem from the summer of 2016, A Sharp Elbow to the Heart of Democracy. And we’ve all seen opposition MPs wearing their burgundy ribbons—a colour chosen to match the hue of my face that day when I kept hollering at Trudeau, “You’re pathetic.”

The wounds are still fresh. Canadians remember watching as members of Parliament stood on 5/18—it will forever be known as 5/18—and with halting voices described the “assault,” “physical molestation” and “manhandling” they had witnessed. Conservative MP Peter Van Loan called it an “extraordinary example of physical intimidation.”

In retrospect, we now understand that many of us were showing the first symptoms of PTSD—Post-Trudeau Skirmish Disorder. This is a relentless affliction. It’s not uncommon for PTSD sufferers to wake up three or four times a night from a nightmare in which Justin Trudeau butts in front of them in line at the grocery store checkout.

Over the past two years, a number of attempts have been made to help members of Parliament find closure. Debates in the House. An investigation by a Commons committee. Conservative MP Deepak Obhrai’s one-man show, The Elbow Monologues. But serenity continues to elude.

That’s why your support is vitally important. We did so much good with the millions raised during last year’s telethon. We bought blankets for affected MPs to huddle under. We paid the salaries of trauma counsellors who remain on call 24/7. And we commissioned a five-metre bronze statue that depicts Peter Van Loan losing his innocence.

Of course, I can talk and talk—heck, I’ve been talking for nine straight hours now! But I wasn’t as up close as some on 5/18. Let me introduce you to Niki Ashton. Thank you for being here, Niki, and thank you for your bravery.

Folks, I invite you—I dare you—to put yourself in Niki’s shoes. Imagine what this New Democrat hero went through two years ago. To see the Prime Minister of Canada striding briskly—briskly!—into your field of view. Then a cuss word. A cuss word from a politician on Parliament Hill! Surely a first.

And finally—I’m sorry I have to talk about this, Niki—amid the blur of blazers and pantsuits, Niki saw it: inadvertent physical contact. It scarred her psyche. No wonder she called the incident “disgusting” and “deeply traumatic.” No wonder she says she no longer feels safe in the House of Commons.

Niki has been travelling a rough road. Today, the mere glimpse of an elbow will prompt her to collapse into sobs. In solidarity, several members of the NDP caucus have had their arms surgically fused to ensure they never bend again. Still, she struggles. But there’s good news for Niki tonight.

With the money we’ve already raised this evening, we are going to change Niki’s life. Come Monday morning, she is going to stride confidently into the House of Commons and go to work in the safety and dignity of an impenetrable Plexiglas cube. She will be literally encased for her own protection.

And it’s just in time. Justin Trudeau continues to ignore the plight of helpless victims. In the month that followed his heinous act, the Prime Minister apologized only 47 times —including three times in the first 24 hours, twice at the candlelight vigil and four times when I stopped his motorcade by throwing myself on the hood of his car.

Our nation will never fully heal from the events of 5/18. But with your generous support we can get a few more MPs encased in Plexiglas cubes.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/elbowgate-traumatized-victims-need-your-support/feed/31Brosseau on PM: ‘Do I have justify how hard I was hit in the breast?’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/brosseau-on-trudeau-do-i-have-justify-how-hard-i-was-hit-in-the-breast/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/brosseau-on-trudeau-do-i-have-justify-how-hard-i-was-hit-in-the-breast/#commentsSat, 21 May 2016 01:23:06 +0000http://www.macleans.ca/?p=876491NDP MP says she has faced personal attacks since she was elbowed in the House by the PM

OTTAWA — Ruth Ellen Brosseau says she has faced personal attacks since she was elbowed in the House of Commons by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, including that she should be “ashamed to be a woman” and that she is “not a feminist.”

In an exclusive interview Friday with The Canadian Press, the New Democrat MP said her office has received a number of phone calls from people across the country, many of them suggesting that she is “crying wolf.”

“My office has received countless phone calls … saying it is my fault, I should be ashamed, I should resign, I should apologize, it is my fault,” a visibly shaken Brosseau said during a conversation at her Ottawa office.

“I get elbowed in the breast and it hurts. It was very painful.”

Brosseau, who used to to break up fights as a bartender prior to entering political life as the MP for a Quebec riding, said she never expected to have to deal with a situation like this once becoming a member of Parliament.

“I am a tough woman, I know how to stand up and deal with situations,” she said. “I was just shocked … I was overwhelmed.”

Footage from the Commons television feed showed Trudeau trying to pull Conservative whip Gord Brown through a crowd of MPs, including Brosseau, who were milling about in hopes of delaying a vote related to the bill on doctor-assisted dying, C-14.

In so doing, Trudeau collided with Brosseau, who could be seen reacting with visible discomfort as Trudeau pushed past her, forcing her against an adjacent desk.

New Democrats reported hearing the prime minister mutter, “’Get the f— out of the way.”’

Brosseau, who teared up several times during the interview, recalled how she felt herself beginning to cry in the immediate aftermath, and decided it would be best if she left the chamber immediately.

“I wasn’t going to go running after the prime minister,” she said. “I was shaking … it is completely inappropriate what happened.”

The prime minister had no right to behave the way he did, she said.

“The prime minister intentionally walked over, swore at us, reached between a few members of Parliament to grab the (Conservative) whip … how did he think he wasn’t going to hit anybody else?”

Brosseau said she has accepted Trudeau’s multiple apologies in the House, including in the moments immediately afterward as well as the following day, but noted that the prime minister has not contacted her directly.

On Thursday, Trudeau told the Commons he takes “full responsibility” for what happened.

“I sincerely apologize to my colleagues, to the House as a whole and to you Mr. Speaker for failing to live up to a higher standard of behaviour,” he said.

“Members, rightfully, expect better behaviour from anyone in this House. I expect better behaviour of myself.”

Trudeau said he did not pay sufficient attention to his surroundings before making physical contact with Brosseau — something he regrets “profoundly.”

Brosseau said the scrutiny she has received since Wednesday’s encounter has been worse than in 2011, when as a rookie candidate she was publicly ridiculed for travelling to Las Vegas during the election campaign.

“I had a lot of media attention in 2011 and after that, I always wanted to just put my head down and work — and work hard,” she said.

“This kind of attention, I didn’t ask for it.”

She also said it remains painful to have to justify what she experienced, adding she feels like she is being attacked from all sides when she insists she did nothing wrong.

“If I was a man and I was hit in the nuts, would we having the same conversation? I don’t know,” Brosseau said.

“And then (people are asking), ‘Was she hit hard enough in the breast?’ Do I have justify how hard I was hit in the breast? It doesn’t matter.”

She also said she has seen comments on social media suggesting she is minimizing sexual assaults and rapes. She said she has never made such a correlation.

“Rape and sexual assault, domestic violence — those are serious, serious crimes and sadly it happens all too often to women and men across Canada.”

A Liberal-dominated Commons committee will now be tasked with reviewing the conduct of the prime minister, though Brosseau said she hasn’t given much thought to what sanctions might be appropriate.

“It is just going to be important, moving forward, what happens to make sure something like that does not repeat itself.”

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has apologized, but an all-party committee will investigate accusations that he “manhandled” the Conservative whip Wednesday and elbowed a female New Democrat MP in the House of Commons.

Footage from the Commons television feed showed Trudeau wading into a clutch of MPs, mostly New Democrats, and pulling Opposition whip Gordon Brown through the crowd in an effort to get a key vote started.

Quebec MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau appears to be in discomfort as Trudeau pushes past her, forcing her against an adjacent desk.

The incident led to mayhem on the Commons floor, with Trudeau at one point in a face-to-face encounter with NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

Speaker Geoff Regan concluded there was a prima facie case that Brosseau’s privileges as an MP had been breached, which means the encounter will be examined by an all-party committee.

Tempers ran high in the Commons all week as the government pushed through a motion to limit debate on its controversial assisted-dying legislation, Bill C-14. It was that motion the members were gathered to vote on before the confrontation took place.

Regan could barely make himself heard as he tried to read the text of the motion. It was defeated by a margin of 172-137, although Brosseau wasn’t able to register her vote.

Trudeau’s apology was followed by a lengthy parade of indignant MPs getting up to express their outrage to the Speaker, describing a scene unlike anything they’d ever seen before in all their years as politicians.

The prime minister issued another apology to a reception related to Parliament saying sorry for the Komagata Maru incident off the B.C. coast in 1914.

“I’m going to apologize again for an incident in the House this evening that might take away a little bit in the news tomorrow, and for some people, the extraordinary celebration that today is, and the important momentous occasion that this day represents, not just in the story of Sikh and southeast Asian Canadians, but in the story of this country,” Trudeau said.

OTTAWA – The House of Commons erupted in chaos Wednesday as a New Democrat MP and her opposition colleagues accused Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of elbowing her in the chest during a confrontation prior to a key vote.

Quebec MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau said she was so shocked by the encounter, she had to leave the chamber as mayhem descended on the Commons floor, with Trudeau at one point in a face-to-face encounter with NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

The incident — coming amid the superheated atmosphere of the doctor-assisted death debate — had MPs in an uproar as they shouted and pounded their desks in a display of antipathy rarely seen in the parliamentary chamber.

Footage from the Commons television feed showed Trudeau wading into a clutch of MPs, mostly New Democrats, and pulling Opposition whip Gordon Brown through the crowd in order to get the vote started.

As Trudeau turns around to pull Brown through, Brosseau can be seen reacting with discomfort.

“I was standing in the centre talking to some colleagues,” Brosseau told the House after calm was restored. “I was elbowed in the chest by the prime minister and then I had to leave.”

“It was very overwhelming and so I left the chamber to go and sit in the lobby. I missed the vote because of this.”

New Democrat Peter Julian could barely contain his outrage, saying he’d never seen such behaviour in his 12 years in the House.

Trudeau issued an abject apology, even amid the catcalls and protests of the opposition benches, saying he was just trying to help the opposition whip get to his seat.

He never intended to hurt anyone, Trudeau insisted.

“I took it upon myself to go and assist him forward, which was I now see unadvisable as a course of action,” said Trudeau, who characterized his actions as “unacceptable.”

“I apologize for that unreservedly and I look for opportunities to make amends.”

What followed was a lengthy parade of indignant MPs getting up to express their outrage to the Speaker, describing how they’d never seen anything like it in all their years as politicians.

At one point, Trudeau left to attend a photo-op with B.C. Premier Christy Clark and a reception for guests who were on hand for a different apology: Parliament saying sorry for the Komagata Maru incident off the B.C. coast in 1914.

During the former event, Trudeau looked serious and shaken as he rushed through a statement of welcome directed at Clark. For her part, Clark said he never mentioned the incident.

Tempers have been running high in the Commons all week as the government pushes through a motion to limit debate on its controversial assisted-dying legislation, Bill C-14. It was that motion the members were gathered to vote on before the confrontation took place.

Speaker Geoff Regan could barely make himself heard as he tried to read the text of the motion. It was defeated by a margin of 172-137, although Brosseau wasn’t able to register her vote.

Conservative Peter Van Loan said the prime minister charged across the floor “with anger fierce in his eyes and face.”

“I’ve read about this stuff in history books from the 19th century,” an incredulous Van Loan said. “I’ve never had it happen in my lifetime.”

Green party Leader Elizabeth May, whose seat in the House gave her a ringside seat for the encounter and subsequent arguments, called for calm at one point — and suggested that the NDP MPs may have been milling about on the floor in order to delay the vote.

“It was most unwise of the prime minister to attempt to move along the vote,” May said.

“But the second contact with my friend (Brosseau), which is certainly the one that was the most emotional for the member involved, was clearly, from my perspective … unintentional.”

She added: “He had not seen her behind him. That is the truth. Now you can like it or not like it.”

The Speaker concluded there was a prima facie case that Brosseau’s privileges as an MP had been breached, which means the encounter will be examined by an all-party committee.

You can learn a lot about a person in one minute. Remember when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took our 60-Second Challenge? His impromptu poetry recital and sly allusion to a certain alter ego—Smokey Sussex—made headlines aroundthe world. We asked Trudeau’s parliamentary colleagues from every party to take the same challenge. NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau played along. She reveals her preference: Truth… or dare?

Maclean’s andl’actualité will celebrate a new class of MPs at Welcome to the Hill, a gala event at Ottawa’s Chateau Laurier on Feb. 23. The evening will culminate in a ceremony that honours an outstanding former parliamentarian with a lifetime achievement award.

No one saw this coming. The polls predicted a Liberal minority. The pundits spent the weekend hedging their bets, raising the prospect of a last-minute surge by the NDP or an underestimation of the Conservatives’ poll numbers. In the end, the Liberal wave swept dozens of big-name candidates from their seats. Nonetheless, there were a number of notable victories for the Conservatives and the NDP. Here are five of the most significant victories and losses of the night:

THE WINNERS

Peter Kent, Conservative (Thornhill, Ont.)

The former minister of the environment is now one of only two Conservatives left in the Greater Toronto Area. Although many Conservative candidates in neighbouring ridings—several of whom were incumbents—put up strong fights, only Kent and Bob Saroya in Markham–Unionville survived the Liberal wave.

Julie Dabrusin, Liberal (Toronto–Danforth, Ont.)

Jack Layton represented Toronto–Danforth from 2004 to 2011 and many considered the riding unwinnable by anyone other than the NDP at the beginning of the campaign. Dabrusin’s victory over Craig Scott completed the Liberals’ rout of the NDP in Toronto. The party Layton led won zero seats in Toronto, despite running a number of star candidates, including Linda McQuaig, Olivia Chow, Peggy Nash and Jennifer Hollett.

Darshan Kang, Liberal (Calgary Skyview, Alta.)

The Liberals have not won in Calgary since 1968. Kang’s victory is a bellwether for changing sentiments in Alberta. Although the Conservatives still took home a significant majority of the seats in the province, the Liberals made a fight of it in a number of Alberta ridings, a far cry from 2011, when they were virtually shut out.

Pierre Poilievre, Conservative (Carleton, Ont.)

The former Conservative minister for employment and social development and democratic reform won his seat in the newly created riding of Carleton, Ont., by a margin of 2,000—a far cry from the 20,000-vote spread he enjoyed in 2011. But he won it nonetheless. Eight of the 10 Ottawa-area ridings went Liberal last night, including the formerly Conservative ridings of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell and Orléans.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP (Berthier-Maskinongé, Que.)

Brosseau was one of the candidates elected in the Orange Wave in 2011, and she was held up as an example of its excesses. She had never been to the riding until after she won it, so a win this time around is a genuine stamp of approval, as she worked over the past four years to gain the respect of skeptical constituents.

THE LOSERS

Gilles Duceppe, Bloc Québécois (Laurier-Sainte Marie, Que.)

The Bloc leader lost to NDP candidate Hélène Laverdière for a second time last night. The silver lining: He managed to bring the party’s seat count from two to 10.

Joe Oliver, Conservative (Eglinton–Lawrence, Ont.)

The finance minister faced two star candidates, Liberal Marco Mendicino and the NDP’s Andrew Thomson, a former Saskatchewan finance minister. He lost to Mendicino by more than 2,000 votes.

Chris Alexander, Conservative (Ajax, Ont.)

The riding Alexander took from former Liberal MP Mark Holland in 2011 turned red again this election. As citizenship and immigration minister, Alexander came under fire for the government’s handling of the Syrian refugee crisis and other divisive citizenship issues.

Bernard Valcourt, Conservative (Madawaska–Restigouche, N.B.)

The former minister for Aboriginal affairs lost by nearly 12,000 votes to Liberal candidate René Arseneault. One of the first ministers to lose on election night, his fate was a harbinger for what was to come.

Olivia Chow, NDP (Spadina–Fort York, Ont.)

This is Chow’s second electoral loss in as many years. (She failed in her attempt for the Toronto mayoralty.) Her defeat on Monday is especially significant, considering that, on federal election night in 2011, she and husband Jack Layton led the New Democrats to official Opposition status on the crest of the Orange Wave.

In the annals of electoral curiosities, there will always be a chapter reserved for the NDP’s Quebec class of 2011: dozens of individuals suddenly elected despite small-to-non-existent campaigns and beyond all reasonable expectations for a party with only the slightest history in the province. That group of 59—famously including an assistant pub manager who spent part of the campaign in Las Vegas, university students and other novices—has always had a certain feel of an experiment.

Three years on, that singular group of MPs faces another milestone: What will 2015 and the prospect of a new election bring?

Of the 59 elected in May 2011, two have since left for other parties—Lise St-Denis moving to the Liberals and Claude Patry to the Bloc Quebecois—while another, Manon Perreault, is suspended from caucus following a criminal charge. So far, with nominations opening around the other 57 ridings currently represented by a New Democrat, only one incumbent has announced that she will not seek re-election.

Marie-Claude Morin, now 29, was elected in Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot in 2011, beating a Bloc Québécois incumbent by 14,000 votes despite spending just $8,553.58 on her campaign. (The NDP had never finished better than third in the riding before 2011.) “Obviously, I was surprised!” she says via email. “But, I was also very glad, politics was like a dream for me.”

Morin says she has enjoyed being an MP, save for having to be away from loved ones when Parliament was in session. But last year she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder (type two) and though she says the illness wouldn’t have prevented her from seeking another term, the experience made her realize she didn’t want to live the life of an MP. “Last year, when I became sick, I realized I spent the first years of my term without spending enough time with my boyfriend, my family and my friends. I realized they are very important for me! After my disease, I began a long reflection: Do I really want to continue to be a politician?” she says. She hopes to continue to be involved in politics, but will leave Parliament Hill with no regrets.

Though the circumstances of her election might have been novel, her reason for leaving is not—Ted Hsu, the rookie Liberal MP for Kingston and the Islands, similarly announced last week that he won’t be seeking re-election because he wants to be closer to his two young daughters. The personal burden of public life is perhaps an underappreciated element of politics. (Several of the NDP’s Quebec class, a relatively young group in 2011, have since become parents, and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has suggested that a daycare for the children of MPs should be pursued.)

It is expected that the vast majority of the class of 2011 will run again in 2015. Ruth Ellen Brosseau, she of the Las Vegas incident, will run again, as will at least three of the four McGill students—Matthew Dubé, Charmaine Borg and Mylène Freeman (the fourth, Laurin Liu, has not yet made a decision). “For me, this has always been the job I wanted,” says Borg. “Ever since the beginning I knew I was going to try to be here for a long time.”

Three years ago, most of Quebec’s ridings did not even have NDP riding associations, fewer than five nominations in the province were contested, and most of those who were elected managed to do so without running full campaigns—Brosseau, Dubé, Borg, Freeman and Liu were each elected without spending even a nickel, according to Elections Canada reports. This time there are riding associations and there will be better-funded campaigns and, in a way, a second chance to run a first campaign. At the same time, it will likely not be as easy as it was in 2011. Jack Layton, the driving force in that remarkable result, is dead, while the Liberals are resurgent, and there will be no (or at least less) chance of the NDP sneaking up on its rivals. Perhaps most surprising, the NDP maintains some chance of retaining most of its unexpected victories—a Leger poll in June put the NDP even with Liberals overall in Quebec at 34 per cent, but with a 14-point lead among francophones.

“Veteran MPs say the second campaign is the hardest no matter how you were elected the first time, so it’s definitely going to be a fun challenge,” Dubé says. “That said, it is significant because I’m looking forward to defending the work my team and I did in the riding and prove that despite the circumstances of the ‘orange wave’ we were able to turn into, humbly, what I feel are decent MPs.”​

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/when-ndp-mps-decide-political-life-isnt-for-them/feed/2The coming European cheese crisishttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-coming-canadian-cheese-crisis/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-coming-canadian-cheese-crisis/#commentsFri, 18 Oct 2013 02:14:04 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=432627The first great challenge of the second session of the 41st Parliament

“It is time—actually, it is well past time—to return to these great stone buildings,” he said, concluding his formal response in the House to the throne speech, “the respect, the dignity, the public trust that they deserve.”

It was time, if nothing else, to get on with the business of this place.

Thomas Mulcair called on the government to initiate an inquiry into the scourge of missing and murdered Aboriginal women, wondered when the Prime Minister would be around to account for the scandals of the government, chided the government for closing veterans’ offices, to which a Conservative MP accused the opposition of wanting to make veterans drive to service offices, and then Mr. Mulcair and Peter MacKay took turns challenging the other to support their respective legislation on cyberbullying.

Mr. Trudeau scorned the government’s economic record, suggested a lack of interest in accountability and then wondered if the Conservatives might be ready to start disclosing their expenses as the Liberals were. Government whip John Duncan stood and unceremoniously said yes. The New Democrats accused the Prime Minister of misleading Parliament as to who knew what about what Nigel Wright did and, in response, Conservative MP Paul Calandra insisted that the government would remain committed to economic expansion. Heritage Minister Shelly Glover wondered if the opposition would “remain silent” about the scourge of bundled cable channels and the NDP’s Megan Leslie asked Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq whether she believes in climate change. There was some discussion about the safe transport of oil by rail. Several references were made to marijuana and, at one point, Mr. Trudeau was accused of favouring the drug trade.

Out in the foyer, Tony Clement would happily pronounce his government “second to none” on openness and transparency in response to a dire report from the information commissioner. And down the hall, the Prime Minister’s appointed government leader in the Senate would stand and explain why he was moving to have three of the Prime Minister’s appointed senators suspended from the upper chamber.

Amid all this was the looming crisis of Canadian cheese. Or, more specifically, the looming crisis of an invasion of European cheese. Sixteen-thousand and eight-hundred metric tonnes of European cheese to be exact.

“Mr. Speaker, Canada’s dairy and cheese industry provides good high-paying middle-class jobs,” the NDP’s Malcolm Allen explained to the House. “Dairy farmers and cheese makers are central to many rural communities across this country. These farmers produce high-quality products at affordable prices without receiving one cent in government subsidy. Why are Conservatives going to jeopardize the livelihood of dairy farmers and cheese makers across this country?”

At issue here is the matter of an apparently impending trade deal with the European Union, particularly the apparently agreed-upon provision for the importation of a total of 30,000 metric tonnes of European cheese without the imposition of tariffs. The Dairy Farmers of Canada are displeased.

For whatever reason, supply management is widely supported by federal politicians. Last year, it was the Conservatives accusing the Liberals of not sufficiently supporting supply management. Last February, the Prime Minister lamented that the NDP had forgotten to mention supply management in their election platform. The Conservatives vowed to defend it in the yesterday’s Throne Speech. And, indeed, even as his side was being accused of undermining it, Pierre Poilievre was claiming that it would be protected.

“Mr. Speaker, all three pillars of supply management are protected, but more than that farmers from across Canada, who are the best in the world, will now have access to over half a billion new hungry customers,” Mr. Poilievre explained this afternoon on behalf of the government side.

Mr. Allen reminded Mr. Poilievre of the Prime Minister’s stated support for supply management. Mr. Poilievre repeated that the pillars of supply management were being protected, even as the market for Canadian cheese was being expanded. “This is jobs; this is hope; this is opportunity,” Mr. Poilievre enthused.

The NDP’s Ruth Ellen Brosseau was apparently unconvinced. “Mr. Speaker, they are disconnected from the reality of Quebec,” she charged. “The Quebec cheese industry is growing. It provides good jobs, often in rural areas who need these economic drivers, in addition to providing Canadians with delicious cheeses.”

Mr. Poilievre chose to think of all the Italians and Swedes who might enjoy Canadian cheddar. “This is 500 million hungry customers waiting to buy Canadian agricultural products,” he cheered. “It is an enormous victory for our farmers.”

And so we come to the first new challenge of this second session of the 41st Parliament of Canada. Can we have both hope and delicious Canadian cheeses? Or must we choose between the two?

It’s basically not feasible, but I do wonder what would happen if a certain number of MPs—let’s say, 10—were selected entirely at random from the general population. Paul Hiebert and JJ McCullough kicked this around as a solution to the Senate: make it like jury duty. I like to imagine it might have a positive effect on the proceedings. Lamenting for the “career politician” is lazy and prizing the neophyte is too simple and dismissing politics as somehow unreal or separate from real life is wrong, but there is a certain kind of reality that a randomly selected citizen might bring. It is at least an intriguing thought experiment.

Nearly two years into the Ruth Ellen Brosseau Experiment, she is still the unlikeliest of MPs—an assistant pub manager who was just a name on a ballot in the 2011 federal election, who had never set foot in her riding northeast of Montreal, and who famously spent several days of the campaign celebrating her 27th birthday in Las Vegas. But even if it is difficult to forget how she got here, she does not now seem entirely out of place. “I think, at first, I was kind of looked at as, ‘Hey, it’s Vegas!’ But I think I’ve kind of proven myself,” she says. “I’m tough. I could have just disappeared and kept my mouth shut and just taken this for a ride and not cared about getting re-elected or representing the people in my riding, but I take it really seriously and I take it to heart.”

On election night, she was an absurdity, the personification of what weird things can occur when democracy is involved. Had she subsequently failed spectacularly, she would have become an indictment of her party and its sudden success. “We owe her a lot,” says NDP MP Megan Leslie. “A lot of NDP-bashing after the election got taken out on her, and she represented us with smarts and grace.”

She likely benefited from the sort of low expectations that come with being a fill-in candidate not ever expected to actually win. “When I’m in my riding, we get a lot of positive feedback,” she says. “Even at the grocery store, I’ll have people stop me and say, ‘You’re doing a really good job, don’t give up.’ ” She figures the curiosity around her election at least boosted her name recognition. And she thinks maybe people see themselves in her.

Indeed, even if the career politician is too casually maligned, there is perhaps something to be said for the randomly elected neophyte. “One of the things I noticed about Ruth Ellen,” says Malcolm Allen, the NDP’s primary agriculture critic, “right from the get-go, from the very first moment I met her, was she was very keen about listening, and not talking—which is unusual for us as politicians, right?”

At this point, Brosseau is both un-politician and politician. When NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair announced his shadow cabinet, she was named the party’s deputy agriculture critic and in that role she has been a prominent presence in the House, particularly during last year’s tainted meat controversy involving XL Foods: Brosseau and Allen took turns challenging the credibility of Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz. “We are looking for answers,” she told the House one morning last fall, “and the minister has not been responsible. He needs to step up or step down.” One afternoon last month, with the New Democrats pressing the government about a possible trade deal with Europe and the Prime Minister apparently feeling it necessary to answer himself, Brosseau found herself standing immediately after one of Stephen Harper’s responses. “Mr. Speaker,” she ad libbed, “that is not reassuring.” It was not the perfect quip—Harper having just denounced the NDP’s trade policies—but this was how Brosseau, who hasn’t yet worked up the courage to introduce herself to him, came to casually dismiss the Prime Minister on the floor of the House of Commons.

Four days later, there was a different kind of moment. That afternoon, Brosseau stood to ask Human Resources Minister Diane Finley about the loss of personal data related to student-loan recipients, Brosseau telling the House that she was one of those whose privacy had been breached. Here was a rare case of an MP being able to speak to the personal impact of a current controversy.

She is renting a place in Berthier-Maskinongé, but planning to buy. She and her 12-year-old son currently live in Gatineau, Que., across the river from Ottawa. Sometimes, if evening votes are scheduled, she brings him to the Hill and he hangs out in the opposition lobby. She says it’s still a bit “dream-like” to be here. But she also says she now can’t imagine doing anything else. She’ll run again in 2015 and has started fundraising and preparing to seek re-election.

Asked if she feels she’s getting the respect of other MPs, she says she thinks it’s coming. The first time she stood to ask a question in the House, she was warmly applauded by MPs on all sides. For awhile after that, the House was quiet when she stood. Now, sometimes, there is a bit of noise. “I’m getting yelled at sometimes when I stand up, or heckled a bit in the House,” she notes. “So it’s kind of like, ‘Yes, they’re yelling at me. That’s good, right?’ ”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/raising-the-bar/feed/46Voting on Bill C-45: So much standing, sitting and signing of Christmas cardshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/live-another-long-night-for-another-long-bill/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/live-another-long-night-for-another-long-bill/#commentsWed, 05 Dec 2012 11:00:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=323329Aaron Wherry's formerly live blog from a long night in the House

]]>The House of Commons is filling up—the Prime Minister seems to have brought a large stack of paperwork to keep him busy—and voting on C-45 will soon commence. We’ll be here until the end to observer all the sights, sounds, thrills and chills of democracy in motion (specifically the motion of standing and sitting down repeatedly).

Our bluffer’s guide to the second budget implementation act is here. All previous coverage of C-45 is archived here. And our diary of the spring’s vote marathon is here.

3:43pm. The party whips have been duly applauded and the Speaker is now calling the first vote. Thomas Mulcair receives a round of applause as he leads the votes in favour.

3:45pm. If you’d like to follow along with the commentary from the floor, our list of MPs on Twitter is here.

4:06pm. The third vote goes to the nays, 148-134. About 10 Conservative MPs just took their first break.

4:13pm. The fourth vote goes to the nays, 147-134. Nathan Cullen rises on a point of order with some concern that a voice vote was not asked for before the last recorded vote. The Speaker acknowledges his error and promises to make sure a voice vote is taken before each recorded vote from now on.

4:20pm. The fifth vote goes to the nays, 243-38—with the New Democrats joining the Conservatives in voting no. The second shift change on the Conservative side just took place.

4:26pm. Raffi, who was in attendance for Question Period, is unimpressed.

4:30pm. The fifth vote goes to the nays, 148-134.

4:31pm. According to a source close to the NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair is presently reading a book entitled, “Regulation theory and sustainable development.”

4:38pm. The sixth vote goes to the nays with the New Democrats voting in the negative. Dan Harris explains. The Conservatives are passing around a bag of peanut M&Ms.

4:45pm. Pierre Poilievre is very careful to make sure the ink has dried on his Christmas cards before he puts them in their respective envelopes. He was just using a very elaborate sweeping hand gesture (sort of a figure eight) to air out a card.

4:49pm. There are four spectators in the south gallery watching this standing, sitting and signing of Christmas cards.

4:51pm. Dick Harris is wearing sun glasses. He spent most of the spring vote marathon with his tie undone.

4:57pm. The stuffed dog that occupied a seat on the government side during the C-38 votes has not shown up for these votes. Perhaps he was kicked out of caucus.

5:03pm. Jim Flaherty might be sleeping. Wait, nope, I think the NDP’s clapping for Mr. Mulcair woke him up. Another reason to ban clapping in the House. Would make it easier to nap.

5:08pm. Pierre Poilievre is reading the dictionary.

5:24pm. A statement from Ted Menzies has just been sent out to convey the minister of state’s profound disappointment with the NDP’s desire to remove the legislation related to pooled retirement pension plans from C-45. “Canadians should be disappointed,” he suggests, “that the opposition would launch an irresponsible attack and attempt to block a measure that will help millions of Canadians meet their retirement goals.”

5:27pm. Dan Harris and John Baird just joked about Mr. Harris tossing a peanut M&M across the aisle to Mr. Baird. Even at this dark hour, bipartisanship lives.

5:35pm. The opposition, in the judgment of the Speaker, just won a voice vote. Alas, the Conservatives demanded a recorded vote, which the opposition will now lose.

5:42pm. The Prime Minister just took his leave with the latest government shift change. Some degree of jeering from the NDP side ensued.

7:17pm. Rona Ambrose has opened the top of her desk and propped up her iPad underneath to create her own personal movie theatre. And whatever she’s watching just made her look away and grimace.

7:45pm. It is believed there are a mere 15 votes remaining. John Baird’s yelling at someone.

7:47pm. Controversy on the opposition as Ted Hsu frets that in standing up to request an antihistamine for Ms. Duncan he might have accidentally recorded a vote for the government.

7:49pm. The Prime Minister has returned. And has returned to his paperwork.

7:53pm. The NDP has commenced slow voting. The Conservatives are jeering. This vote apparently has to do with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Nathan Cullen just carried on a back-and-forth with James Moore while voting. “Nice work children!” called someone on the government side. Gordon O’Connor, the government whip, is appealing for quiet from his side.

8:00pm. John Baird is providing running commentary on the slow vote. He declared this to be the NDP’s “productivity in the workplace policy,” which the government backbench enjoyed. There was also something about the New Democrats thinking they were getting time and a half.

#SlowVoting by NDP now succeeded by quick voting by Liberals. “Bob Rae knows how to get it up!” a person next to me quips loudly…

John Baird is to Mr. Clement’s immediate right. Jim Flaherty is to Mr. Clement’s immediate left.

8:11pm. That motion is defeated, but the slow voting continues, led by a methodical Mr. Mulcair.

8:14pm. Peter Julian just luxuriated in the act of voting. Pausing, once on his feet, to do both buttons on his jacket, then slowly bow his head, before returning to his seat.

8:15pm. “Canadians are watching!” calls a voice on the government side.

8:17pm. Alexandre Boulerice just paused once on his feet to take two sips of water and then made a water-flowing motion with his right hand before returning to his seat.

8:24pm. I believe Rona Ambrose just gasped at whatever she’s watching on her iPad.

8:29pm. A particularly enthusiastic cheer for the Prime Minister as he leads the government vote.

8:34pm. With that motion defeated, the NDP returns to normal speed.

8:56pm. The Prime Minister passes along a photo to demonstrate how much he enjoys voting.

9:18pm. At this late hour, it is a test to see which gentlemen in the House still have the manners to button their jackets when standing and unbutton their jackets upon returning to their seats. Matthew Dube, for instance, did well this time through. The Prime Minister as well.

9:24pm. John Baird now kidding with the NDP frontbench, notes that this sort of thing didn’t happen when he was Government House leader. I think Mr. Baird enjoys these things. I believe he has successfully yelled “hear, hear!” each time the Prime Minister has voted so far.

9:30pm. It’s possible we’re down to the last five votes.

9:34pm. Rick Dykstra expertly cracks open a can of pop and pours himself a drink under his desk so as not to too gratuitously offend the orders of this place.

9:38pm. The motion is defeated 148-133.

9:42pm. There are now 10 people in the south gallery to watch the exciting conclusion.

9:46pm. The motion is defeated 146-132.

9:47pm. Glenn Thibeault notes the ominous number of the amendment to be voted on.

9:49pm. Bob Rae receives a standing ovation from the Liberal corner. The Conservatives across the way add their applause. When the vote moves to the government side, Mr. Harper receives a standing ovation from his MPs.

9:52pm. MPs are beginning to pack up their belongings.

9:53pm. The motion is defeated 153-133.

9:54pm. The last vote, to pass the budget at report stage. The Conservatives yell “yay,” the New Democrats scream “no.” Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin gives the voice vote to the opposition, but a recorded vote is demanded. A standing ovation and prolonged applause for the Prime Minister as the government side votes.

9:58pm. The Conservatives cheer the last of their votes and then the New Democrats treat Thomas Mulcair to a standing ovation and prolonged applause for Thomas Mulcair as he leads the nays. The New Democrats continue cheering as the clerks call their votes. As they did last spring, the NDP chant “deux-mille-quinze!” The Conservatives respond by banging their desks and chanting “carbon tax!”

10:01pm. Elizabeth May casts the last no vote and the bill is passed at report stage. The Conservatives applaud. Mr. Harper accepts handshakes. MPs on all sides file out and the House moves to adjournment debate. Applause can be heard from the government lobby.

]]>The Scene. For as long as humans have possessed language it has been generally true that few good conversations involve the phrase “fecal contamination.”

Perhaps that’s why the Prime Minister stepped aside this afternoon to let Gerry Ritz respond to the bulk of questions; of the six questions he might’ve otherwise been expect to take, Mr. Harper rose to respond to only two. Or maybe this was some attempt to make up for Mr. Ritz’s initial absence when last the House was seized with the matter of suspect beef.

At issue today was how we handle our cow carcasses: specifically whether our attitude toward the presence of “spinal cord/dura-mater” depends on whether Canadian or Japanese citizens are expected to ingest the resulting hamburgers.

“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the CFIA has confirmed that meat sold in Canada is as safe as that is exported to other markets, including Japan,” Mr. Harper attempted to reassure the House. “Indeed, it is the Canadian law in this regard.”

Nycole Turmel was unconvinced.

“Mr. Speaker, if the health of Canadians was not threatened, why did the minister changed this dangerous directive there less than two weeks ago?” she wondered aloud. “Last spring, the Minister presented the report on plans and priorities of his ministry. He made ​​cuts of about $ 46 million to the CFIA. It undermines the inspection process for beef to be consumed at home. How many inspections are to be suppressed due to cuts? What level of fecal contamination are Conservatives willing to accept?”

On this matter of cow poop (not to be confused with bull crap), it was Mr. Ritz’s duty to respond. “Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that safe food is a priority for the government and for CFIA, who enforces those regulations,” he reported. “We continue to build a robust food safety system in the country. We have added 20% to their budgets. We have added hundreds of front line food inspectors. We continue to do that, despite the NDP voting against those initiatives.”

Ms. Turmel suggests that Mr. Ritz was creating a two-tiered system. Mr. Ritz managed to respond without a hand written sign. “Mr. Speaker, those allegations are absolutely unfounded and untrue,” the Agriculture Minsiter admonished.

It was then the impatient Malcolm Allen’s turn. “Was the minister really not aware front line food inspectors were being directed to ignore food safety procedures?” he asked. “Conservatives have lost all credibility on food safety, so will they now agree to an absolute audit of CFIA, as instructed in the Weatherill report and do the audit now?”

Mr. Ritz seemed to think Mr. Allen was poor of hearing. “The member opposite just sat through two hours of CFIA and myself giving pertinent information about these allegations, which are totally unfounded,” the minister ventured. “CFIA has the budgetary capacity, thanks to our government and not thanks to the NDP.”

Mr. Allen seemed to think Mr. Ritz was excluding a relevant detail. “What we heard for the last two hours was clearly that we had the largest beef meat recall in the county’s entire history, courtesy of the minister and CFIA.”

Karate-chopping his way through the air in front of him, Mr. Allen demanded that the responsibility for food inspection be transferred to a different minister. Mr. Ritz offered only what he would not do. “We will not apologize for doing our due diligence through CFIA to make sure that food is safe in the country,” he explained.

A few seconds later, Bob Rae stood and put on his reading glasses to report aloud. “Mr. Speaker, the first memo that was sent out by CFIA in 2008 says as follows: ‘When stationed at this position ensure that non Japan eligible carcasses are not inspected for spinal cord/dura-mater, OCD defects and minor ingesta.’ It goes on to say to ignore them,” he removed his glasses to put the question. “How can the Prime Minister say that everything is perfectly okay when in fact the memo was changed?”

Before Mr. Harper could respond, Mr. Rae offered his own answer. “It was changed because there is a problem.”

The Prime Minister offered his assurances, but the interim Liberal leader was unimpressed. “Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the meat recall crisis, I would remind the Prime Minister, was the largest meat call anywhere in the world ever with respect to what took place.”

(Note: A meat call is probably not to be confused with a cattle call. Assuming that the actors involved in the latter are not generally believed to be smeared in spinal matter.)

Mr. Ritz was once again unapologetic. “We, of course, would never apologize for the size and scope of a recall,” he ventured, somewhat oddly.

Under questioning from Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the moustachioed minister was finally compelled to explain what was really going on here. “If the NDP had its way, the hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of inspectors that we put in place since we formed government would never have happened,” he declared. “That is unfortunate.”

And so, apparently, the NDP’s fiendish plot to turn us all into vegetarians—or perhaps ensure that only vegetarians survive—is revealed.

The Stats. Food safety, 10 questions. Government spending, five questions. Foreign aid, four questions. Trade, three questions. Ethics, foreign investment, national security and the port of Montreal, two questions each.

Federal food inspectors have released a long list of deficiencies — clogging of water nozzles used to wash feces from carcasses, condensation above exposed product, and unsanitary handling of meat — found during an audit of an Alberta plant at the centre of the country’s largest-ever beef recall, but missed during routine inspections.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency said Friday that XL Foods Inc. also had no appropriate plan to handle a late August spike in positive tests for a potentially fatal bacteria, but agency officials struggled again to explain why their own inspectors didn’t spot the festering problem weeks before and act then to stop contaminated product from reaching grocery shelves.

Meanwhile, demonstrating that accidental MPs grow up so fast these days, here is an email that went out to New Democrats yesterday afternoon.

My fellow New Democrat,

When the Conservative Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, finally bothered to show up in the House of Commons this week, it was clear he had no answers for his mishandling of the largest beef recall in Canadian history.

]]>The Scene. Thomas Mulcair stood and turned in his spot to directly face the Agriculture Minister seated across the way. After three days elsewhere, Gerry Ritz was back in the House of Commons. And with the Prime Minister occupied by a photo op scheduled for precisely this moment, there was now no one between Mr. Ritz and the opposition MPs who were here to shame him.

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Mulcair began, “is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food willing to accept responsibility for the self-regulating food inspection system he put in place?”

The New Democrats stood to cheer this query. Mr. Ritz stood to respond.

“Mr. Speaker, of course, there is no such system,” he asserted. “The CFIA operates at a professional level on a program called CVS which was implemented in 2005.”

This disagreement here was thus no less than definitional.

Mr. Mulcair stood to elaborate on his concerns. “Mr. Speaker, yesterday the head of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency told reporters that key E. coli testing data had been withheld from government food inspectors by XL Foods. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knew that food safety data was being withheld. He knew that there were unsafe conditions at XL Foods,” the NDP leader said, venturing his reading of events. “Why did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food withhold that information and endanger the lives of Canadians?”

Mr. Ritz stood to offer his assurances. “Mr. Speaker, when the first sign of E. coli showed up on September 4, CFIA took that seriously and recalled that product, brought it back to the facility and destroyed it. None of it got into the retail system,” he said. “Having said that, it began operations on September 4 and has been operating every day since. I have been meeting with CFIA officials on a daily basis to ensure that it has the capacity and is doing everything it can to ensure Canadian food safety.”

The NDP leader pressed further about what had gone wrong and what the government knew. Mr. Ritz pressed his case about what had happened and what had been done well.

With his fourth opportunity, Mr. Mulcair tabled the probably inevitable proposition. “The Minister of Agriculture has no other choice,” the NDP leader declared. “He must resign.”

The New Democrats stood to support their man’s demand. This being Mr. Mulcair’s first demand for a ministerial resignation—a seminal moment in the life of any new leader of the opposition—balloons should have been released from the ceiling and the proceedings halted so that the NDP leader could be presented with a commemorative painting or engraved watch, but instead Mr. Ritz was immediately afforded the opportunity to respond.

“Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite fails to recognize is that the OECD, an international body, has ranked Canada’s food safety system right up there at the top,” he offered in his apparent defence. “Every other country that we deal with, including Japan, that has a robust food safety system looks to emulate ours.”

It is unclear if Japan has been asked to comment since the beef recall.

“We will continue to do the job,” Mr. Ritz continued. “We will enhance what CFIA has, the rules and regulations it works within, and the dollars it will have to hire more inspectors. I am hopeful that the NDP will support us in those initiatives.”

He chopped his hand a bit at the end and the Conservatives in attendance stood to cheer and demonstrate their support for their man.

With his fifth and final opportunity, Mr. Mulcair reviewed the indictment and repeated the demand. “Mr. Speaker, key safety equipment damaged and inoperable, no clear testing standards, no monitoring system for tracking high rates of E. coli, withholding key food safety data, all of this just four years after the same minister of agriculture presided over another tainted meat scandal that killed 22 Canadians and he made jokes about it,” he scolded, jabbing his finger in the air. “This time the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knew what was going on. He withheld what he knew from Canadians and he is refusing to be accountable. He is the one who put the self-regulating system in place. He is responsible. Why is this Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food still in his position? He must resign.”

Once more the New Democrats stood and cheered.

Mr. Ritz stood and reiterated his defence. “Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a self-regulating system in Canada,” he asserted. “CFIA has a number of different jobs it performs in these plants every day. The particular plant in question has 46 professional CFIA staff, which is a 20% increase over just a few years ago. We take this very seriously. We are working to ensure that CFIA has the regulations it requires and the monetary capacity to get the job done. I am hopeful that the NDP will work with us in the future.”

He was yelling at the end and the Conservatives stood up around him to cheer (various MPs in the Liberal corner mockingly calling them on).

Alas, Mr. Ritz was just a quarter of the way through the interrogation. Bob Rae wanted to know about gaps in the timeline. The NDP’s Malcolm Allen and Ruth Ellen Brosseau did too. NDP MP Philip Toone wanted to know why suspect meat was still being sold in his riding as of yesterday. Claude Gravelle wanted to know about broken rinse nozzles at the XL Foods plant. Linda Duncan returned to the subject of self-regulation. Peggy Nash asked about budget cuts.

Seventeen questions into the afternoon, Liberal Marc Garneau stood and simply explained what he wanted Mr. Ritz to say. “Here’s what Canadians wanted to hear a responsible government,” he cried. ” ‘Yes, we have a serious problem. Yes, we are focusing on the problem immediately and yes, the health of consumers is our first priority.’ ”

Mr. Ritz was concerned that Mr. Garneau had not heard his reassurances. “Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member has been,” he pleaded. “We constantly say how seriously we take food safety by enhancing the capability of the CFIA to do its job.”

Not until the 19th question, did Mr. Ritz obviously wobble.

“We continue to enhance the capacity of the CFIA from both a budgetary and human resource perspective to get that job done,” he explained. “To make sure that it has the ability to capture any type of product like we see here, we build a body of evidence in our timeline and are looking forward to more recalls coming out.”

Perhaps “looking forward” was not quite the phrase Mr. Ritz was looking for here.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-playing-20-questions-with-gerry-ritz/feed/0The milk warshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-milk-wars/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-milk-wars/#commentsFri, 22 Jun 2012 20:22:50 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=270257The Dairy Farmers of Canada are not impressed with Martha Hall Findlay. The Conservatives at least attempted to register their dismay yesterday, while the New Democrats issued the following release…

]]>The Dairy Farmers of Canada are not impressed with Martha Hall Findlay. The Conservatives at least attempted to register their dismay yesterday, while the New Democrats issued the following release this morning.

Conservatives have put Canada’s supply management on the table in trade talks – and now we see some Liberals openly opposing our supply managed sectors, according to NDP International Trade Critic Don Davies. “New Democrats have a clear and strong policy: Canada’s supply managed sectors provide clear benefits to Canadians and will not be compromised, in trade talks or otherwise”, insisted Davies. He pointed out that supply management in Canada’s dairy, poultry and egg industries is a tested system for efficient delivery of safe, local food to Canadians. Davies said that, unlike other countries who subsidize their producers, Canada’s supply management policy doesn’t cost taxpayers a cent.

NDP Agriculture Critic Malcolm Allen added his concerns of what any concessions could mean for these important industries. “By putting supply management in the cross hairs of these negotiations, the Conservative government is attacking the livelihood of dairy, poultry and egg farmers right across the country; farmers who expect this government to live up to its word.”

Deputy NDP Agriculture Critic Ruth Ellen Brosseau added that supply-managed products are competitively priced, with Canadian milk costing less than Australia and New Zealand – and in the US taxpayers subsidize milk. “New Democrats will continue to stand up strongly for the dairy, poultry and egg sectors, important industries that employs thousands of people,” said Brosseau.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-milk-wars/feed/6C-38: The oppositionhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/c-38-the-opposition/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/c-38-the-opposition/#respondMon, 14 May 2012 12:00:58 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=258400Courtesy of YouTube, a selection of opposition speeches in response to the budget bill.
Robert Chisholm

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/c-38-the-opposition/feed/0Power, Parliament and the Prime Ministerhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/power-parliament-and-the-prime-minister/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/power-parliament-and-the-prime-minister/#commentsFri, 04 May 2012 20:57:34 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=257187Donner winners Mark Jarvis and Lori Turnbull argue that the Prime Minister has become too powerful.In the House, the prime minister and government have considerable control over day-to-day operations. …

]]>Donner winners Mark Jarvis and Lori Turnbull argue that the Prime Minister has become too powerful.

In the House, the prime minister and government have considerable control over day-to-day operations. This allows governments not only to set the agenda, but to carry it out with ease. The prime minister commands the steadfast loyalty of his MPs, largely through a carrot-and-stick approach; co-operative MPs might be rewarded with cabinet posts or coveted committee positions, while rogues can be — and at times are — punished with removal from caucus or even barred from running as a candidate for the party in future elections. All of these are vestiges of prime ministerial power. The party caucus has little leverage with which to counterbalance the prime minister’s power because party leaders are chosen (and replaced) by the party at large, rather than by the caucus. Thus, the government’s MPs have no effective mechanism through which to stand their ground against a very powerful leader or effectively represent his or her constituents.

In a rebuttal, F.H. Buckley argues that the Canadian system is preferable to the current American system.

That Canada’s current economic situation is better isn’t necessarily an argument for our Parliament (as one wag joked on Twitter, it’s actually an argument for adopting China’s system of governance). That the Westminster model is more efficient has been noted by various observers over the last few years as the U.S. Congress has descended into dysfunction. But a simple either/or debate oversimplifies matters. The American system isn’t inherently dysfunctional: one of its biggest problems is a rule that didn’t exist until 1975. (The Senate is ripe for reform.)

Buckley concludes with a nod to Ruth Ellen Brosseau.

The genius of the Anglo-Canadian parliamentary system is the manner in which a prime minister is given the incentive to advance the national interest. A party leader who seeks support across the country must have the interest of the country as a whole in mind. If he concentrates government spending in one region only, he will lose support in other regions. That’s why strong a prime minister and a Parliament of nobodies better serves the country than the separation of powers and earmark-seeking Congressmen, like the late John Murtha of Pennsylvania (of the John Murtha Airport, John Murtha Center, etc.).

I’ll take Ruth Ellen Brosseau M.P. over Murtha any day. The comely member for Berthier-Maskinongé might not possess the legislative skills or ability to bring home the bacon, but a Parliament of Ruth Ellens more closely resembles the idealized assembly described by Edmund Burke in his Address to the Electors of Bristol, an assembly “of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide.”

Setting aside the particulars cited—and why Ms. Brosseau has to be referred to here as “comely”—what is the choice here? Between a powerless nobody elected as a placeholder and a power-abusing Congressman elected because of his ability to “bring home the bacon?” Why is that the choice? Are there not dozens of examples of congressmen who have used their individual power and authority in a way that is consistent with what we’d like to see from our elected representatives? Isn’t this just an argument to ban earmarks?

As I read Mr. Burke’s address, it is an appeal to the judgment of the individual representative; that each is not merely a conduit for his or her constituents, but that “your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” That, in a way, is precisely what many of us seek for the parliamentary system. But in this case the problem is not that MPs are bound to their constituents, but that MPs are bound to their parties (or, more specifically, their party leaders).

If we’re deferring to ancient texts, I’ll go with Latin: primus inter pares. First among equals. That’s what our Prime Minister is supposed to be. Instead—and contrary to the either/or argument—we have something like a president who commands Parliament. The current U.S. Congress is not the alternative. It is merely a system that, in its own way, is in need of reform. If we reform ours, there are lessons to be found in how theirs has bogged down. But this is not a choice between Westminster and America. It’s a choice between the system we have and the system we’d like to have.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/power-parliament-and-the-prime-minister/feed/5Free ridehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/free-ride/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/free-ride/#commentsThu, 22 Mar 2012 14:43:47 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=247182The Globe finds six NDP MPs who were elected on the cheap.Another one of the NDP no-spenders is Philip Toone, a lawyer and a first-time MP for Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine. “I …

Another one of the NDP no-spenders is Philip Toone, a lawyer and a first-time MP for Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine. “I had me and my orange tie,” Mr. Toone remembered, saying he relied on word-of-mouth to spread news of his campaign. “Miracles are rare.”

Mr. Toone didn’t put up lawn signs or billboards and recorded no campaign expenses – though he did make note of $12.50 in auditing work that was marked as received in August, four months after the election.

Three of those MPs are from the McGill Four, who I profiled last fall. Another is Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who I wrote about here and here.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/free-ride/feed/14The fight for Saint-Maurice—Champlainhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-fight-for-saint-maurice-champlain/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-fight-for-saint-maurice-champlain/#commentsWed, 18 Jan 2012 15:17:11 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=234302The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association says it will be looking into the automated calls made by the NDP in Lise St-Denis’ riding. The New Democrats seem undaunted.New Democrats …

]]>The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association says it will be looking into the automated calls made by the NDP in Lise St-Denis’ riding. The New Democrats seem undaunted.

New Democrats say Lise St-Denis owes it to her voters to return to the polls. “If Lise St-Denis has confidence and an ounce of respect for democracy, she’ll let the citizens of her riding be the judge. If not, she’s unworthy of representing them.”

“New Democrats will continue to work on behalf of the citizens of Saint-Maurice–Champlain. They deserve someone in Ottawa who will stand up for them and represent their values,” concluded Turmel. “The families of the region can continue to count on us.” To demonstrate this, the leader asked Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières) and Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier – Maskinongé) to step in and bring the issues affecting the people of Saint-Maurice – Champlain to the House of Commons.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-fight-for-saint-maurice-champlain/feed/2The House: The meaning of Lise St-Denishttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-house-the-meaning-of-lise-st-denis/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-house-the-meaning-of-lise-st-denis/#commentsWed, 11 Jan 2012 13:34:53 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=232768Once more to our periodic series on the House of Commons.Lise St-Denis’ constituents are anecdotally displeased.“It is completely ridiculous,” said Pierre Huot, director of the student association at …

“It is completely ridiculous,” said Pierre Huot, director of the student association at Collège Shawinigan. “If she wants to join the Liberals, she should run in a by-election.”

Mr. Huot apparently voted for the Bloc Quebecois last time around.

The Liberal result in Saint-Maurice-Champlain was rather dismal in May—Yves Tousignant finished fourth with just 11.9% of the vote. Not since 2004 has the Liberal candidate in the riding finished better than third.

All of which, once again, raises all those questions about who and what one votes for when one marks one’s ballot. A lot of the same questions that were raised, for different reasons, by the election of Ruth Ellen Brosseau.

The case of Ms. Brosseau was obviously more straightforward. Her name was on the ballot, a sufficient number of citizens cast a vote for her and thus she was entitled to take a seat in the House of Commons. Ms. St-Denis can’t—by her own admission—claim much more credit for her election than Ms. Brosseau can claim for hers, but now she has gone and actually dumped the party affiliation that is mostly responsible for the 18,628 votes she received in May.

In timing (relatively soon after an election) and circumstance (she concedes the public didn’t vote for her) and for the lack of an unexpected crisis that motivated her to change, hers is thus something like a worst case scenario. The people of Saint-Maurice-Champlain voted for a New Democrat and, eight months later, they got a Liberal. It will likely be more than three years before they can hope to really do anything about that.

So what to do about this? She could, if such a requirement was legislated, be compelled to sit as an independent and then made to face a by-election. Only with the blessing of constituents would she then be allowed to sit with her new party. In theory, I think this might make a lot of sense.

But what about other situations in which an MP becomes estranged from the party they represented at the last election? What if an MP is expelled from caucus? What if that MP was expelled from caucus because he or she refused to retreat from or contradict a promise made in the party’s election platform? What if an MP is expelled because he or she decides to side with the majority view of constituents instead of party discipline? What if an MP simply decides that he or she no longer wishes to belong to the party for which they were elected and, as a result, resigns from the caucus?

Conceivably, the MP in these cases could choose to sit as an independent MP. And you could argue that that is different from actually switching allegiance from one party to another. But if a plurality of voters in a riding choose a Conservative MP are they thus entitled to expect that they will have a member of the Conservative party representing them until the next election? If so, does any break between candidate and party represent a break with voters? Does it matter how and why the break occurred or only that it happened?

There are plenty of question marks here, but I think there are two basic questions: What do voters bestow in voting? And what are voters owed as a result?

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-house-the-meaning-of-lise-st-denis/feed/11From the magazinehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/from-the-magazine-12/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/from-the-magazine-12/#respondMon, 19 Dec 2011 18:18:57 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=230471From the most recent print edition, 900 words or so on the tax debate we might have to have. And, from a couple issues ago, 600 words or so on…

]]>From the most recent print edition, 900 words or so on the tax debate we might have to have. And, from a couple issues ago, 600 words or so on Ruth Ellen Brosseau and Parliament’s new arrivals.

If all had gone according to plan, the NDP candidate in the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge would have been noted little beyond the historical record. She would have been nothing more than an entry on the ballot that the majority of voters in that riding passed over as they marked an X beside the name of the incumbent, Guy André of the Bloc Québécois, or perhaps the Liberal candidate, Francine Gaudet, a former member of the national assembly of Quebec.

But then the polls changed and Ruth Ellen Brosseau became an example of democratic absurdity. And then our political hierarchy changed and Brosseau became a duly elected member of Parliament.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/from-the-magazine-12/feed/0Newsmakers of the Year: neo-NDPershttp://www.macleans.ca/news/lets-get-this-party-started-2/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/lets-get-this-party-started-2/#respondThu, 01 Dec 2011 16:45:01 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/08/let%e2%80%99s-get-this-party-started/When the NDP won an unprecedented 103 seats in the federal election, an eclectic cast of unknowns was thrust into the spotlight

If all had gone according to plan, the NDP candidate in the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge would have been noted little beyond the historical record. She would have been nothing more than an entry on the ballot that the majority of voters in that riding passed over as they marked an X beside the name of the incumbent, Guy André of the Bloc Québécois, or perhaps the Liberal candidate, Francine Gaudet, a former member of the national assembly of Quebec.

But then the polls changed and Ruth Ellen Brosseau became an example of democratic absurdity. And then our political hierarchy changed and Brosseau became a duly elected member of Parliament.

A single mother living in Gatineau, Que.—several hours by car from Berthier-Maskinonge—Brosseau worked as the assistant manager at a university campus pub in Ottawa. She did not speak French fluently and had possibly never set foot in the riding she was nominally running to represent. Midway through the campaign she went to Las Vegas on vacation. But her name was on the ballot. And a week after her 27th birthday she received 22,403 votes, nearly 6,000 more than André.

The NDP’s previous record for seats won in Quebec in a single election was one. On May 2, they claimed 59 seats in the province. Nationally, the party had never managed more than 43. This spring it won 103. Swept up in such change was an eclectic cast of unlikely MPs—a horticulturist, a karate instructor and various students, including 19-year-old Pierre-Luc Dusseault, the youngest individual ever elected to the House of Commons. And in the immediate aftermath of the vote, Brosseau became a convenient—and, it must be said, photogenic—symbol of so much happenstance.

By the only measure that matters—the number of people willing to mark an X beside their respective names—they are all winners. Some might be likened to lottery winners, but a lucky ticket holder is not instantly invested with so much responsibility and power. And so, however they got here, it now only matters what they will do with this opportunity.

They have already changed the face of the House of Commons. There are now some 19 MPs under the age of 30. Thirteen of those MPs are women. That, in the first place, challenges our idea of what a politician is supposed to look like. They may yet change the way we practise or perceive politics or what we expect of young people. Some might one day be cabinet ministers. One or two of them might end up as prime minister. But it is early days. The under-30 set are conscious of the opportunity to represent their generation on issues like student debt and youth unemployment, but they have constituents now and they are parliamentarians, with everything that entails.

Brosseau has stood in the House to pontificate on the regulation of cosmetic contact lenses and acknowledge the local buckwheat pancake festival. She has seconded a private member’s bill that would allow those in service industries to claim tips for the purposes of employment insurance. And one afternoon in September she loaned her voice to the daily shaming of Tony Clement. “Mr. Speaker, as a single mother, I have very busy days,” she told the House. “Between helping my son with his homework, making meals, rushing to drop him off at school, going to the office and returning to pick him up on time, the last thing I want is to hear about the mismanagement of public funds at the G8 summit.”

So Brosseau is now very much a member of Parliament. And we have a very different kind of Parliament. One that may ultimately redeem itself, whatever the oddity of its creation.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/parliamentarians-of-the-year-awards-party/feed/0The Commons: Whatever Peter MacKay did, he supports the troopshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-whatever-peter-mackay-did-he-supports-the-troops/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-whatever-peter-mackay-did-he-supports-the-troops/#commentsThu, 29 Sep 2011 23:07:00 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=217952Tony Clement could use a gazebo-loving veteran right about now

]]>The Scene. As Jack Harris proceeded with his first question, there were catcalls from the government side. There was also some discussion along the government’s frontbench—between Messrs. Harper, Van Loan and MacKay—as to who would stand to respond.

“Mr. Speaker, as Canadians brace for another recession, we learn that our defence minister continues his ethically challenged ways. He has racked up nearly $3 million jetting around the country,” the NDP defence critic reviewed. “The government will not invest in infrastructure, in health care or jobs, but it will invest millions in making this minister the frequent flyer champion of government jets. When will the government ground that high-flying minister?”

Typically—this being the ninth question of the day and Mr. Harris not being a party leader—this would’ve been for the Defence Minister to answer. But here Mr. Harper motioned that he would take it.

“Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to get that question from the honourable member,” he claimed, as if he were somehow new to this place. “As I pointed out, the minister uses the Challenger 70 per cent less than his predecessors and, half the time he does that, it is for repatriation ceremonies. What I would expect from the honourable member is for him to be asking how he could join the Minister of National Defence and also participate in those ceremonies for Canadian families.”

Apparently finding this bit of logic quite persuasive, the government members leapt to their feet to applaud and yell out. No doubt they would’ve been even more enthused had this version of events been indisputably true.

“Mr. Speaker, perhaps some facts can help the Prime Minister answer the questions more accurately,” he said. “Most of the flights were not for repatriation of fallen soldiers, only nine of the 35. There was a flight from a fishing camp at Camp Crosbie, to a lobster festival in Halifax, and Challenger trips to photo ops for government spending announcements. He even took a jet to Vancouver to the same event to which another minister flew commercial.”

What the NDP critic seemed to fail to grasp here is that Peter MacKay supports the troops. And that that pretty much explains everything.

Mr. Harper attempted once more to make this point. “Mr. Speaker, the fact is the Minister of National Defence has participated in some 55 repatriation ceremonies for over 80 lost Canadian service personnel,” the Prime Minister explained as the House fell silent.

“When the member asks these kinds of questions and behaves this way,” he finished, “he reflects on his own character, not on that of the Minister of National Defence.”

Once more the Conservative members leapt up. Across the way, Thomas Mulcair pantomimed the playing of a violin.

There is, for sure, a case to be made that fussing over who has flown where and on what is of little importance in the grand sweep of national governance. If it is any solace to Mr. Harris, he should remember that however unbecoming his questions about official air travel protocol, dwelling on such matters does not necessarily disqualify him from becoming, say, Immigration Minister in a Harper cabinet (or Government House Leader or Heritage Minister or, for that matter, Defence Minister).

Alas, there is no solace of any kind to be found for the man who continues to sit—and quite resolutely at that—a half dozen seats down the frontbench from Mr. MacKay. To Tony Clement’s continued chagrin, none of his gazebos or public toilets or bike racks can be said to have been directly involved in a deceased soldier’s repatriation ceremony. Though surely some kind of case could be made that some veteran or member of the Canadian Forces resides in his riding and could, therefore, be said to have possibly benefitted. A photo of someone in uniform sitting in the shade under a bandshell should likely soon be procured.

“It has been 112 days of this charade of hiding behind the foreign affairs minister,” Charlie Angus asked after Mr. Baird had dismissed his first question. “Will that member stand up and come clean to the Canadian people?”

After two more direct challenges to Mr. Clement’s fortitude, the NDP sent up Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and the subject of countless jokes. “As a single mother, my days are very full,” she said, standing straight and tall with her hands folded together in front of her. She proceeded to explain her commitments to home and family and work and her efforts to get home at a decent hour.

“The last thing I want is to hear about the mismanagement of public funds at the G8 summit,” she claimed. A minister who does not respond to questions and refuses to accept responsibility, is that really the model we want to pass on to our children?”

Across the aisle, the Prime Minister smiled, perhaps in admiration of this gambit.

John Baird duly stood to take this one as he has taken every other attempt to shame Mr. Clement.

“The Auditor General has come forward with some positive observations on how the government could do an even better job at being more open and transparent,” he assured. “The government has accepted all those recommendations and will continue to work constructively with the Auditor General to constantly raise the bar to do an even better job for hard-working taxpayers.”

And no doubt Mr. Clement supports the troops too.

The Stats. The economy, seven questions. The G8 Legacy Fund, six questions. The environment, five questions. The defence minister, four questions. Seniors, three questions. Judicial independence, abortion, Sri Lanka, the RCMP and copyright law, two questions each. Infrastructure, veterans, taxation and the Canadian Wheat Board, one question each.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-commons-whatever-peter-mackay-did-he-supports-the-troops/feed/10This is the week that washttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-is-the-week-that-was-2/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-is-the-week-that-was-2/#commentsSat, 18 Jun 2011 17:17:18 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=198337The House debated Libya and the meaning of regime change. The opposition demanded to hear from the President of the Treasury Board. Charlie Angus mocked Tony Clement. Then mocked him …

]]>The House debated Libya and the meaning of regime change. The opposition demanded to hear from the President of the Treasury Board. Charlie Angus mocked Tony Clement. Then mocked him again. And again.

Jack Layton took his place in Twitter history. A former Liberal MP worried that Parliament wasn’t serving Canadians well. Ruth Ellen Brosseau was applauded. Elizabeth May dissented. Mr. Clement looked on the bright side and clarified what he meant by “anachronistic” and dismissed what he’d said about user fees. The ethics commissioner suggested a code of conduct for MPs. Peter Stoffer proposed a ban on floor crossing. The youngest MP in history made his maiden remarks.

The governor of Kandahar quibbled with Stephen Harper. The National Research Council’s budget was cut by 20%. The Green Infrastructure Fund was cut by $45 million. Mr. Harper’s push for senate reform got even messier. The NDP’s existential crisis continued. And the Afghan detainee documents remain untabled.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-is-the-week-that-was-2/feed/7The House of Mutual Appreciationhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-house-of-mutual-appreciation/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-house-of-mutual-appreciation/#commentsWed, 15 Jun 2011 13:54:13 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=197146Ruth-Ellen Brosseau rose yesterday to ask her first question of the government. When she stood she was treated to a standing ovation from the NDP side and applause from various…

]]>Ruth-Ellen Brosseau rose yesterday to ask her first question of the government. When she stood she was treated to a standing ovation from the NDP side and applause from various members of the Conservative side.

After stating her question—in French, mind you—she was treated to another standing ovation from the NDP and more applause from various members of the Conservative side.

On a recent Wednesday, Liette Carle was bicycling along the main strip of Louiseville, Que., a town of about 7,500 about an hour’s drive northeast of Montreal, when she came upon a swarm of journalists in front of the town hall building. In the midst of it all was Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the local NDP candidate, who earlier this month defeated the two-term Bloc Québécois incumbent seemingly despite herself.

“I’m happy to meet you,” Carle said, en français. Brosseau said the same back, thereby exploding one of the myths about the 27-year-old politician: her French is actually quite good, despite claims to the contrary floated in the press during the election.

The non-journalist crowd, Carle included, was instantly smitten with the intensely friendly woman in a black pantsuit. Really, though, Carle would have voted for just about anything with an NDP orange hue. She didn’t care that Brosseau had never set foot in the district until that day, or that she’d spent a considerable part of the campaign vacationing in Las Vegas. Carle didn’t even blink at the post-election news that Brosseau’s resumé had been mildly embellished on the party website. “I didn’t vote for Brosseau,” Carle says over red wine and radishes at her kitchen table. “J’ai voté pour Jack.”

J’ai voté pour Jack. Carle’s phrase continues to haunt pollsters and rival politicians two weeks after the NDP’s astonishing Quebec breakthrough, in which Jack Layton’s party took 59 of the province’s 75 seats. The harvest includes five McGill students, one martial arts expert, a horticulturalist and Alexandrine Latendresse, a 26-year-old linguistics student whose interests include “iced vodka, wrestling and procrastination,” according to her Facebook page.

“She was in the right place at the right time, if that’s the term you want to use,” says Marc Brosseau, Ruth Ellen’s father. “I didn’t think she was going to win. I’d done an analysis of what had been happening with the party during the election. She was seven points behind at the end, and I just didn’t see how she was going to make that up in one night.”

Equally impressive is the NDP’s margin of victory: in the Quebec ridings they won, the party beat their rivals by an average of over 17 percentage points. The NDP’s so-called Orange Wave wiped out Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe as well as all of his presumed successors, along with three Conservative cabinet ministers. (This includes Josée Verner, a five-year incumbent in the Quebec City riding of Louis St Laurent, ousted by a certain boozy, wrestling procrastinator.) The average age of an NDP MP is 45—nearly five years less than the governing Tories.

Yet despite the enormous victory, NDP officials have mostly kept their crop of new MPs on a tight leash—none more so than Brosseau, who has yet to venture out in public without the NDP’s Quebec lieutenant Thomas Mulcair at her side. She has dyed her hair from blond to a more demure shade of brown and is reportedly undergoing intensive French classes. “The party wants a cautious approach to the whole situation,” says Marc Brosseau. Indeed, party officials have refused all print interview requests with the newly minted MP, save for one: a spread in La Semaine, a supermarket glossy known for its soft-focus pictures and even softer treatment of its subjects.

“It’s a lack of vision on the party’s part,” says Pierre Martineau, a DJ at a radio station in nearby Trois-Rivières. “They’re protecting her too much. It’s like they’re scared of what she is going to say, of how bad her French is. But we had her live on the air here, and she speaks fine.”

Guy Richard concurs. The mayor of Louiseville welcomed Brosseau, Mulcair and newly elected Trois-Rivières MP Robert Aubin into his office hours after Jack Layton’s office called to say they were on the way. They spoke about economic development—“Louiseville is overly dependent on our furniture production industry,” says Richard—and the need for continued federal funding for the town’s buckwheat festival, which attracts 100,000 people every fall.

“ ‘Sponsorship’ is a bad word in Quebec, but the fact is we need it,” Richard says of the $350,000 in federal money the town receives annually to celebrate its most famous crop. “I was very impressed with her answers. It went very well.”

After all the drama and tension of a landmark election, Canadians probably needed a little comic interlude. The NDP provided one, although quite unintentionally. They served up the whimsical story of Pierre-Luc Dusseault, 19, whose upset victory in Sherbrooke, Que., made him the youngest MP ever, and meant he’d have to forgo his summer job on a golf course. Then there were the three McGill University students who will have to suspend their studies after surprising even themselves by capturing Quebec seats. And, of course, there was Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the assistant pub manager at Ottawa’s Carleton University, who hadn’t even visited the Quebec riding of Berthier-Maskinongé before winning it handily. Just as well, since Brosseau’s French isn’t so good and most of her constituents don’t speak English.

Jack Layton spent much of his first post-election news conference fending off questions about the scant experience of these and other rookies in his much enlarged Quebec contingent. With the collapse of the Bloc Québécois, an astonishing 58 NDP MPs from the province were elected on May 2, up from just one, Montreal’s Thomas Mulcair, before the election. But if all the attention on Layton’s youth brigade suggested an NDP caucus characterized by dewy-eyed campus idealism, that’s a misleading impression. In fact, the front benches of the second party in the House—traditionally seen as a government-in-waiting—will feature many tough-minded former union leaders. “We have some pretty major labour folks,” says veteran Vancouver NDP MP Libby Davies. “That’s a connection to a very solid base of activism, an understanding of politics and how it works.”

Davies herself came to federal politics by way of a position with the Hospital Employees’ Union, along with five terms on Vancouver’s city council. Among MPs expected to be assigned high-profile jobs by Layton, organized labour credentials are predominant. Take, for instance, just those who have been teachers’ union officials. Paul Dewar, who was NDP foreign affairs critic in the last Parliament, and is sometimes mentioned as a possible successor to Layton, is one. Irene Mathyssen, the London, Ont., MP who chaired the NDP’s key women’s caucus before the election, is another. They will be joined by rookie B.C. MP Jinny Sims, who was president of the B.C. Teachers’ Federation during the 2005 strike, when it was fined for contempt of court for ignoring a return-to-work order.

But the teachers’ unions are outgunned in Layton’s caucus by the Canadian Auto Workers. Returning MPs with CAW backgrounds include Nova Scotia’s Peter Stoffer and Ontario’s Malcolm Allen. Joe Comartin, the Windsor, Ont., MP who was Layton’s respected justice critic, is a former CAW lawyer. Another Ontario MP, David Christopherson, was a United Auto Workers local president way back in the 1970s, and has led the NDP charge on democratic reform issues. Claude Patry, a retired CAW local president, was elected as part of the NDP’s Quebec breakthrough. The best-connected New Democrat in the current CAW, however, is Peggy Nash, a former top negotiator for the union, who won back the Toronto riding she held from 2006 to 2008.

Nash is the sort of union stalwart who drives Stephen Harper’s Conservatives to distraction. In her previous stint as an MP, she spearheaded resistance to the naming of retired oilman Gwyn Morgan, a Calgary business icon, as head of Harper’s proposed public appointments review board. Morgan was the Prime Minister’s hand-picked choice to usher in a new era of clean federal appointments. But Nash argued he was too much a Tory partisan for the post, and she raised sensitive racial issues by criticizing comments he had made linking immigration from the Caribbean and Asia to crime in Canadian cities. Opposition MPs voted down Morgan, and a furious Harper shelved the whole impartial appointment-review concept.

Nash’s return to the House is touted by Layton’s top advisers as a key addition to their bench strength. More than the impact of any single politician, though, it’s the union culture so many NDP MPs share that sets them apart from the Liberals they have suddenly supplanted. Dewar says one big difference is organized labour’s emphasis on contract bargaining. He says that showed in the way the Liberals, along with the Bloc, allowed the Conservatives to largely set the rules for deciding how documents related to the contentious handling of Afghan detainees would be vetted for release—terms the NDP rejected. “The Liberals,” Dewar says, “didn’t have the experience and the skills to negotiate well.”

But few voters ever gain any sense of how MPs play their cards behind the scenes in House committees and caucus meetings. It’s the public impression Layton’s caucus creates that will largely determine if he can prevent the Liberals from reclaiming their traditional centrist political turf. Appearing to be too close to organized labour could be a liability for the NDP. After all, only a minority of working Canadians belong to a union, about 30 per cent last year, down from 38 per cent in 1981. Unionization rates are lower still in the private sector, making the influence of public sector unions in the NDP a potential issue. And that influence is substantial and looks to be growing, with the election of potential caucus heavyweights like Nycole Turmel, the former president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and Robert Chisholm, a former Atlantic regional director of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

The clout of these and other advocates for government unions could be significant in the coming battle over departmental budgets. Harper has vowed to find $4 billion a year in cuts to direct federal spending, not including transfers to the provinces and individuals. Dewar says the NDP is sure to oppose any job cuts proposed to achieve those reductions. But he argues the NDP is uniquely positioned to try to bring government unions into discussions about saving money without shrinking the bureaucracy. “We can actually talk to public sector unions,” he says, “about finding ways to innovate.” And doing more than merely combatting restraint at every turn, he adds, will be vital to solidifying the NDP’s election gains. “The stereotype,” Dewar says, “is that we’ll just oppose cuts and that’s it.”

Since its founding in 1961, the NDP has been formally linked with organized labour. In fact, the party was a joint creation of the old Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the Canadian Labour Congress. Still, as political science professors Lisa Young of the University of Calgary and Harold Jansen of the University of Lethbridge have written, unions never dominated the NDP to the degree that organized labour long controlled social democratic parties in Britain and Australia. Union representatives typically make up less than a quarter of delegates to an NDP convention. In 2004, political financing reforms banning union contributions to federal parties, along with corporate donations, seemed likely to further curtail organized labour’s influence in the NDP.

Yet the bond endures. Young and Jansen, after interviewing labour leaders and NDP officials about the end of union donations to the party, concluded that “shared ideological commitment and overlapping personnel are sufficient glue to hold together a modified relationship.” That relationship can only strengthen with the addition of a cluster of new MPs who bring senior union experience. With its caucus ballooning to 102 MPs from the previous 36, the NDP also needs to quickly recruit more than 250 parliamentary staffers, and supportive unions are expected to supply many of the needed recruits. That influx of eager young assistants might represent a new bridge between union offices and the NDP on Parliament Hill.

Of course, not all NDP MPs come out of unions. Layton built his political career as a Toronto city councillor, and urban activism has emerged as another key incubator for NDP talent. MP Olivia Chow, Layton’s wife, also made her name in Toronto city politics, as an advocate, like him, on issues like homelessness and as an opponent of some development schemes. Megan Leslie, a rising NDP star since she was first elected in 2008, is a lawyer who worked on social justice and environmental causes in Halifax. As well, the NDP touts its experience from provincial government, led by Mulcair, who was a minister in Quebec’s Liberal government before jumping to the federal NDP in 2007. Layton never misses a chance to mention the NDP’s track record of governing prudently in B.C., Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

He was scheduled to give his first speech since the election this week at a CLC convention in Vancouver. The event was planned long before the Tory minority fell and the election was on, but the symbolism is potent. He can’t afford to drop what Brian Topp, one of his key strategists—and executive director of the performers’ union ACTRA in Toronto—has described as Layton’s formula of “optimistic, sunny idealism” and “fiscally prudent pragmatism.” Those may not be themes traditionally used to rally a union audience. But as the politician who has just brought Canada’s labour movement closer than ever before to federal power, Layton is in a position to set his own tone.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/union-made/feed/18‘Everyone is very nice’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/everyone-is-very-nice/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/everyone-is-very-nice/#commentsThu, 12 May 2011 15:02:49 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=191345The MP for Berthier-Maskinonge visits her constituents.According to participants in one meeting, she insisted on struggling along in the language of her constituents — speaking in French even when …

According to participants in one meeting, she insisted on struggling along in the language of her constituents — speaking in French even when they addressed her in English. “It’s not bad — she has an accent but at least she speaks French,” said another resident, Daniel Ringuette. He said he’s just happy she finally visited the riding: “I even invited her to come play tennis with us,” he said…

“She speaks French so well, it’s surprising,” said Louiseville mayor Guy Richard, after their meeting. “I think we will have a very good MP.”

]]>We return to our periodic series on the House of Commons. This time to consider the case of Ruth Ellen Brosseau.

For the record, in the election just completed 22,403 eligible voters in the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge marked a ballot in favour of Ruth Ellen Brosseau. Those 22,403 votes were more than any of the other five eligible candidates in that riding received. As a result, Ms. Brosseau, like the other 307 individuals who officially registered as candidates and subsequently received the highest number of votes in their respective ridings, is lawfully entitled to take a seat in the House of Commons.

That much is fairly indisputable.

So what precisely is the problem here?

The 22,403 people who voted for her did not have to do so. As it seems she did absolutely no campaigning on her own behalf, it can be argued that she didn’t even ask for their support. Aside from a name on a ballot and a website, she made no public appeal. Her absenteeism—or at least her mid-campaign trip to Las Vegas—was public knowledge before May 2. If the registered voters of Berthier-Maskinonge did not wish to send her to Ottawa as their federal representative, they had five other options. If they were so intent on voting for the NDP, they at least knew full well—or shouldhave known full well—the choice they were making.

To put this another way: what, for the sake of argument, is the difference between Ruth Ellen Brosseau and the dozens of candidates who avoided public debates or media interviews during this election?

Ms. Brosseau willingly put her name forward as the NDP candidate in a riding the NDP has never won. Her predecessor in Berthier-Maskinonge finished fourth—19,000 votes behind the winner—and spent just $1,358 on his campaign. Ms. Brosseau had, at the outset, almost no reasonable prospect of winning and, as noted, did nothing to improve her chances. One imagines that if the NDP had seen some reasonable expectation of victory in the riding, it would have found a more obviously qualified and committed candidate. And there seems to be some agreement that all parties allocate their candidates and resources depending on their chances of victory in particular ridings—ie. the major parties do not mount full (or at least equal) campaigns in all 308 ridings, but focus instead on the ridings they think they have the best chances of winning. Whether or not there are any candidates who failed even to visit their respective ridings, there are surely more than a few who mounted half-hearted or inadequate campaigns. The only difference is that Ms. Brosseau, quite inadvertently, won.

Is that better or worse than the various candidates who, counting on a riding’s traditional support for a particular party, avoided public forums and the like, comfortable in the knowledge that they would likely win anyway? Which is preferable: not bothering because you expect to lose or not bothering because you expect to win? Which more offensively mocks our democratic process?

At the very least, it’s a debatable distinction. Ultimately, Ms. Brosseau is simply getting more attention right now because her situation seems so particularly ridiculous. It is indisputably comic and it would make a fine book—if Terry Fallis hadn’t already sort of written it.

But consider Ms. Brosseau’s story from one more angle: What is the difference between a placeholder candidate who inadvertently wins office and a conscious candidate who campaigns to become a placeholder MP? Is Ms. Brosseau really that much different from the other names that appear on the ballot or is she just the most glaring manifestation of a system that has rendered the actual individuals running for office almost entirely irrelevant?

The Westminster system is probably supposed to force a certain degree of tension on the voter. Do you vote for the party, the leader or the local candidate? Often times these three may line up well enough, but what if you like one party’s local candidate, while preferring another party’s platform or leader? What if you really like a party leader, but find the local candidate unacceptable? In a perfect situation, these might be the sort of questions you’d have to confront at the ballot, but in the present situation, it almost only makes sense to vote for the party leader or platform. Indeed, that’s exactly what 22,403 voters in Berthier-Maskinonge—presuming that Ms. Brosseau doesn’t have any family in the riding—just did.

You can debate to a certain degree just how powerless the modern MP is or by what real or imagined measure that power is so restrained. There are, indisputably, some great and honourable men and women who occupy the House of Commons and do admirable, honourable work. But it’s difficult to get around the overarching idea—perception?—that the MP exists to fill a seat in the House of Commons as an outlet for a party leader’s power. For sure, no party leader can remain in power without keeping his caucus reasonably happy. No doubt, the party system demands a certain degree of discipline and sacrifice for the sake of the “team.” But how many at this point—both within the political class and among the general public—view the individual MP as much more than a placeholder in the House and a conduit to the outside world for the party’s preferred messages and views? How many MPs view themselves as anything more?

(When Ekos asked some months ago for respondents to identify the most important criteria for voting, 17 percent identified the local candidate. I’d guess it’s really even lower than that. And when you consider how deferential candidates must be to the party line and leader, you could even debate whether the “local candidate” possesses a distinction worth noting.)

Whether that powerlessness is real or imagined—whether a product of apathy, cynicism or careful study—the MP has become a very small figure in our democracy. You could expend thousands of words sorting out the public, press and parliamentary pressures that have so reduced the idea of the MP, but whatever the cause, it seems the reality is made fairly unavoidable by the election of Ruth Ellen Brosseau. Whatever balance the ballot is supposed to compel, the choice is fairly simple now: find the party you prefer and put an X beside whatever name happens to be there.

All of which is simply to suggest that laughing and fuming in Ms. Brosseau’s direction is perhaps a bit unjust when there’s an entire national political system to laugh and fume at.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-house-the-meaning-of-ruth-ellen-brosseau/feed/49Berthier-Maskinongé: the NDP’s Stalingrad?http://www.macleans.ca/authors/colby-cosh/berthier-maskinonge-the-ndps-stalingrad/
http://www.macleans.ca/authors/colby-cosh/berthier-maskinonge-the-ndps-stalingrad/#commentsMon, 09 May 2011 22:58:46 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=191020We are all having a good time chortling about the Ruth Ellen Brosseau Crisis (Day 7!), which has become the biggest “cute white girl goes missing” news story since Natalee…

]]>We are all having a good time chortling about the Ruth Ellen Brosseau Crisis (Day 7!), which has become the biggest “cute white girl goes missing” news story since Natalee Holloway. But I think political horserace-handicappers need to start considering, seriously, whether the New Democratic Party is starting to foul up their foul-up. Humour is the most powerful acid in politics when it comes to dissolving confidence and momentum; a politician can fight a lie, but he cannot fight a good joke.

The NDP has left us with the impression that it has all but kidnapped Brosseau and is putting her through some kind of sadistic round-the-clock training—perhaps in a basement lit by a single bare light bulb—in the hope of making her presentable to the cameras at some point. This really is getting kind of creepy, and the English-language phone interview with somebody who can only be described as “a person claiming to be Brosseau” didn’t help. Nor does the media’s collective failure to establish any meaningful proof of Brosseau’s prior existence. (There are no candid photographs extant of a campus pub manager? There’s nothing on Flickr?)

I suppose Brosseau’s captors/handlers can argue that she is a grown-up who signed nomination papers on the dotted line, and that it will not do for her to back out now. The problem they have is that the longer we have to wait for her to manifest her existence, the greater the NDP’s apparent investment in her success, and the higher the standard that will eventually be applied to her. The party brass did have the option, in the hours following the election, of distancing themselves politely from her, slapping her on the back, wishing her good luck, and letting her take her own chances. They could have said “We’re a party with a strong grassroots, and we don’t handpick elite candidates according to their polite capitalist credentials or the content of their tax returns.” Instead, at the very moment its professionalism should no longer have been in serious question, the party made the decision that the new Quebecois empire must be defended to the last ditch. Which seems to have left it playing out a bizarre fast-forward retelling of Shaw’s Pygmalion.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/authors/colby-cosh/berthier-maskinonge-the-ndps-stalingrad/feed/55‘It was just symbolic’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/it-was-just-symbolic/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/it-was-just-symbolic/#commentsSat, 07 May 2011 20:44:56 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=190842NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau gives her first interview.Initially, she said, she put her name on the ballot as a favour to the party she has long-supported. “It was …

Initially, she said, she put her name on the ballot as a favour to the party she has long-supported. “It was just symbolic,” she said. “I was approached to put my name on a ballot but I was a supporter of the NDP for many years.”

Watching Monday’s results at the NDP headquarters in Ottawa, Brosseau said she was surprised to see she had handily beat the Bloc incumbent. There was some speculation when Brosseau failed to surface this week that she didn’t want the job, but she said that “never crossed my mind.” “Once I set my mind to something I always stick to it,” she said.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/it-was-just-symbolic/feed/100We’re right to be skeptical about young NDP MPshttp://www.macleans.ca/education/university/were-right-to-be-skeptical-about-young-ndp-mps/
http://www.macleans.ca/education/university/were-right-to-be-skeptical-about-young-ndp-mps/#commentsSat, 07 May 2011 03:22:45 +0000http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/?p=25871And please, stop calling it ‘ageism’

]]>When I was 19 and off university for the summer, I ended up spending most of my working time behind a bar. Though it wasn’t a job of rigorous expectations, I undoubtedly lucked out by being in the right place at the right time. One of the recipients of my hurried CV was a little Toronto restaurant that happened to be losing its only front-of-house employee the same day I dropped off my resume. I fumbled my way through an interview that afternoon: “Hmm…” the owner said, scanning my hospitality-weak resume. “I really would like someone with a bit more experience…” But she gave me the job anyway (probably out of sheer desperation) and that summer I earned every penny of my server’s minimum wage.

Only now do I realize that my composure during the interview was totally to my own detriment. When the owner was mulling over her desire to have someone with more experience, I really should have shouted “Ageist!” and stormed off angrily, possibly flailing.

After all, isn’t that what we’re supposed to do now that pundits are expressing skepticism about our brand new under-30 MPs? The youngest is 19-year-old Pierre-Luc Dusseault, a Université de Sherbrooke political science student who became Canada’s youngest ever MP last week after winning his Sherbrooke riding. And of course, along with six or so other 20-somethings, there’s Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who we all now know as the non-French-speaking assistant pub manager who won over her Francophone riding despite vacationing is Las Vegas during the campaign.

Many of these new MPs were clearly just lending their names to the NDP in ridings that were almost certain to vote Bloc. So, naturally, people are questioning their ability to perform well in their new unexpected, perhaps unwanted positions. And, also naturally, reactionaries have labeled that questioning with that nastyA-word. Then there are those, perhaps more rational than the ageist alarmists, genuinely asking why these young MPs are facing more scrutiny than rookie MPs with experience in other fields.

To me, the reason seems obvious. A rookie MP coming from a business background brings with her knowledge about corporate affairs and economics. A farmer new to politics brings with him agricultural insight and perspectives on climate change. Yes, they speak for different communities, but also bring valuable, diverse experiences to the House of Commons. Unfortunately, a 19-year-old just doesn’t have that wealth of life experience to draw on.

That’s not to say, however, that a young MP can’t serve his or her constituents well. Indeed, I hope that is the case. But in the meantime, we’re justified in keeping a raised eyebrow, at least until these young MPs fill up their resumes.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/education/university/were-right-to-be-skeptical-about-young-ndp-mps/feed/29‘There’s a problem’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/theres-a-problem/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/theres-a-problem/#commentsThu, 05 May 2011 14:35:05 +0000http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=190092The existential crisis that is Ruth Ellen Brosseau’s election is captured here in four sentences.Ghislaine Tessier said she voted NDP because she likes leader Jack Layton, not because of …

]]>The existential crisis that is Ruth Ellen Brosseau’s election is captured here in four sentences.

Ghislaine Tessier said she voted NDP because she likes leader Jack Layton, not because of the local candidate. She also says Brosseau could always learn French. It’s the fact her new MP has never been to the riding that, Tessier said, really annoys her. “We elected someone who’s not even present and who didn’t campaign at all — there’s a problem,” said Tessier, a teacher.